Eser · Frontiers in physiology 2024 · randomized crossover trial · n=57

Improved exercise ventilatory efficiency with nasal compared to oral breathing in cardiac patients.

Cited 0 times in the scientific literature.

Level 2 - randomized trial

Randomized crossover physiological trial

PubMed 39165283 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2024.1380562 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

The study assessed the acute effects of nasal versus oral breathing on exercise ventilatory efficiency across four groups: heart failure patients (n=15), chronic coronary syndrome patients (n=15), young healthy controls aged 20–40 years (n=15), and older healthy controls aged ≥45 years (n=12). After a 3-minute warm-up, participants completed two 5-minute bouts on a cycle ergometer at 50% peak power in randomized order—once with nasal breathing and once with oral breathing. Spiroergometry parameters were measured and evaluated using Wilcoxon paired-sample tests and linear mixed models adjusted for sex, height, weight, and test order.

What was found

Across all groups, nasal breathing resulted in significantly lower minute ventilation (V̇E), ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide (V̇E/V̇CO2), breathing frequency (fR), and end-tidal O2 partial pressure (PETO2), along with significantly higher tidal volume and end-tidal CO2 partial pressure (PETCO2) compared to oral breathing. In the heart failure group, nasal breathing resulted in a median 35% lower V̇E/V̇CO2, 26% lower fR, and 10% higher PETCO2. Exercise oscillatory ventilation present in 6 patients was markedly reduced, and overall abnormal breathing patterns improved in 80% of cardiac patients.

Why it matters

Inefficient exercise ventilation predicts disease progression and mortality in cardiovascular disease. These findings show that nasal breathing can acutely improve ventilatory efficiency and stabilize breathing abnormalities during moderate exertion in cardiac patients.

Limits

The sample size was small (57 total participants, 15 per cardiac group). The trial assessed only brief 5-minute bouts at a single submaximal intensity (50% peak power), leaving high-intensity feasibility, long-term training adherence, and clinical outcomes unaddressed.

Cited by